The Pit - IMI Trust

The traditional benchmark companies use for success is financial. Money talks. Now, there seems to be a trend towards ‘Triple Bottom Line’ values. Triple bottom line is to achieve success on three levels - Economic, Social and Environmental.

The more cynical of us would think that it is a ploy from marketers to exploit fears over climate change and the lack of community currently pervading society. However, members of Generation X and Generation Y inherantly have a ‘greener’ social compass and a Triple Bottom Line agenda is effective in speaking directly to these groups.

Investors and consumers alike are actively looking for companies, products and opportunities with that fit within a Triple Bottom Line agenda. The focus is no longer just on achieving solid to spectacular earnings from quarter to quarter, just to keep shareholders and employees happy.

Government, and shadow government, are both using Triple Bottom Line metrics to shape policy. Corporates, such as Westpac Bank, are spending millions on advertising to align their brands with consumers who are socially and environmentally minded.

Countries are looking at carbon offsets, people are looking to be carbon neutral, businesses are looking at sustainable practices. And seemingly, for the first time, profit can be generated too from these scenarios. This is why Triple Bottom Line is an important change to the corporate landscape. Historically, companies have looked at social and environmental initiatives to occur at the expense of profits. Today, there can be success on all three fronts: economic, social and environmental.

For instance, governments are allocating resouces and grants to ideas with a triple bottom line bent, corporates are willing to sponsor these initiatives and investors are passionately seeking companies with triple bottom lines to invest in.

In the last few weeks we have come across two powerful companies with solid triple bottom line structures. Companies from isolated rural areas in Australia, in areas that have had it tough because of drought and natural disasters, in recent years. They have now captured the interests of companies and governments worldwide.

This will be interesting space to watch in the coming months as we lead up to a federal election and over the next few years as the impact of triple bottom line companies is felt by society.

Henry Paulson, former CEO of investment banking giant Goldman Sachs and now US Treasury Secretary is the man that the US financial markets are pinning their hopes on to stimulate the market for US exports to China.  The US is in a massive hole to China in its balance of payments.  Consider…

• Most junk found in street markets is ’Made in China’. 
• Most middle-order and high-end, manufactured items that are commonly known as ‘US Brands’ are Made in China
• In the US market alone, Chinese investors have around $1trillion in US Currency

The US is not happy with this and want to redress this imbalance.   They believe in ‘Hank’, as he is known, that Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the US Federal Reserve has deployed a dedicated to team to facilitate this ‘mission’.  If Hank can’t do it, no-one can. 

Henry Paulson is known for his ties in China. His relationship with the Government and Corporate Enterprise, is seen as the fundamental reason Goldman Sachs has strong credibility in China. But there is more to it than that.  John Thornton, his second in command while at GS, was the first western business leader to take up a full-time teaching role in China.  Tsinghua University is China’s leading business university and is producing 1200 MBA’s per year.  These link led GS to be Lead Manager in the ICBC IPO and numerous other domestic listings. 

Goldman Sachs, is one of the only US companies freely doing deals in China. Obviously, George Bush noticed the respect he received with his Chinese dealings, all this without the rigmarole of actually having to go to war. 

The US want him to make the US position in China stronger.  The first step is to encourage China to float their currency, the Chinese Yuan, to enable the massive trade deficit to close.  China’s approach is ”We will… eventually!”.  Without Hank on the case, it would have been a definite ‘No’. 

Hank Paulson is a faciliator of business.  He realised long ago you can’t just ‘take’.  There has to be a balance.  In order to receive you have to give. Funnily enough, as the US consumer ‘gave’ for Christmas, the Chinese manufacturers ‘received’.

OK, who in their right mind would spend that amount? Which company has this as their marketing budget?

Is it Berkshire Hathaway? Maybe Warren Buffet has opened up his purse and decided let the Benjamins run free. After all, their stock price recently cracked US$100,000 per ‘A’ Share. Yes… 1 single share will be a nice $100K investment for you, but of course you can’t buy shares in 1’s, you would need to buy 100 shares. D’Oh!  Maybe it is Microsoft, as they have US$50Bn kicking around in their coffers. Maybe Telstra, have lost it and decided to plough that money back into promoting their Next Gen network service/T3 share offer. (Note:  Next Gen = 3G - but because they are a year behind schedule Next Gen sounds cooler).